Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

I don't recall ever having interacted with you but you just changed my rights. I can't read the summary. Could you justify this change? It impacts my ability to do deletion and cleanup because pages I mark for deletion no longer get marked automatically as reviewed. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly why I removed the rights...your deletion requests are often inappropriate. If they are not marked reviewed, they are more likely to be reverted by those reviewing. And I found you through the WP:ANI threads. If you want to complain about the change, do it in those threads.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are experienced enough to not believe every unsubstantiated allegation you read at ANi. Please show me where my "deletion requests are often inappropriate". [1]. [2] Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, while the discussion is still running, your have already started hammering him? The Banner talk 16:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I investigated a number of Legacypac's promotions to mainspace, and most do not meet any reasonable criterion for such promotion. I can't say it's conclusive he's violating the rules, but he admits to actions which create disruption. I would require more time to determine whether a topic ban is appropriate, but it's clear his edits need to be watched. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking actions that are disruptive. I am plowing through backlogs in AfC. Your accusation of improper moves might justify me not being autopatrolled, a right I've not sought because I like having my moves to main reviewed and added to projects etc. Here is my move log. [3] If there is really such a problem, you would expect to see a lot more red. Remember in addition to regular NPP everyone who has ever lost a dispute with me is pouring trough my edits looking for issues already. If you believe a specific page is unsuitable, use AfD. Also, I use twinkle which automatically marks pages tagged for deletion as reviewed. If you have an issue with twinkle functionality, my user rights are not the correct venue. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not sure if there are any policy/guideline violations at all, but you still act against him. Why? The Banner talk 19:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Being disruptive is against policy.
2. Moving BLP violations (or copyright violations) from draft to mainspace is a violation of WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT; even though the status before is in violation, the status afterwords is worse. My action specifically reduces the damage caused by these moves. Removing the other bit would also help.
3. It may not be complete, but Legacy had agreed to restrictions (or had restrictions imposed) and then pushed around the edges, demonstrating either WP:GAME or WP:CIR problems.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. say what?

2. No one has shown I've moved a BLP violation to mainspace. Making false allegations like you just made IS against the rules. I missed one copyvio that was caught by someone else. I did not introduce the copyvio I just missed it while checking for any problems. On the flip side I've found copyvio other reviewer missed. So where is there a pattern?

3. What are you talking about? Again broad allegations without proof. Legacypac (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note a WP:PERM request related to this was just denied, with an appeals referral suggested to WP:AN if desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Arthur, I'm not currently concerned with what's going on at AfC - that's more of DGG's domain - but I believe that on the balance, Legacypac's New Page Reviewing is a net positive; there are a lot of people doing a worse job, and the vast majority of them who asked for the right are not doing any reviewing at all. Also, there is a current issue at which the WMF is not enthusiastic about updating the Page Curation software, based on what they feel is a too-strict interpretation by the community over our work at NPP. This is a major critical issue and I would like to avoid more humiliation for Legacypac by him being dragged into the arguments being used by the Foundation. I move we reinstate the right, but of course the final decision rests with you. I feel we can resolve this here without the background noise of peanuts being munched at AN or ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not editing subject to the approval of any particular staff member of the WMF; on the contrary, provided that the overall editing of the enWP falls within the fundamental policy of the foundation, they exist in order to facilitate our work, not the other way round. As I see it, their appropriate role in development of editing tools for use here is to do what is practical to fulfill our reasonable requests. The difficulty here is that in the area under discussion, dealing with with new less-than-satisfactory articles, neither we nor they have yet found any good way to solve the problem. I do not have one myself: I can propose various things that might help, and some of other suggestions might help also, but none of them would come near what is needed. This problem has been here for many years, and for many years we've essentially ignored it because there was nothing much we could do about it. Now that we're trying to face it, our inadequate attempts to solve it are interfering with each other.

It is my personal opinion that none of us ever will--the fundamental principle that anyone can edit is basically incompatible with the requirement of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. At the beginning, this was not visible as a dilemma, for there was no delusion that we were actually trying to make a quality encyclopedia, just to make --or play with making--an encyclopedia of some practical usefulness. Everyone recognized then that, while it might be useful, it would not fulfill the basic requirement of a traditional encyclopedia, of being of sufficient quality to be an authority. That's still the official view--we still object when people treat us as having a higher level of reliability than our methods can actually attain. We are right to object, because our methods cannot really do that and our work is being misused.

Unfortunately, because of our great scope and universal availability, and the deceptive appearance of reliability that our format produces, the public, which does not itself collectively have very high standards of reliability, insists upon treating us as if we were reliable. We have therefore tried over he years to meet the public's expectations. To some extent, this is a good thing to do ; certainly we have o reason for deliberately being unreliable. But we will never come near the goal of quality as long as we have collective amateur editing. We're nearer than I or any of us originally thought, but its not because of our accuracy. Anyone who wants an accurate encyclopedia must work under other methods.

The WMF, like any formal organization, will never be really supportive of uncontrolled work done under its auspices. No person who is really qualified to set policy in a formal organization, is simultaneously ab;e to honestly work on an equal basis in an anarchic environment like that of enWP. Some people can switch modes, but they can't do both simultaneously. The only model for how the professional organization of the WMF can treat us amateurs, is like irresponsible children--to humor us a little, and try hope we grow up enough to become educated and socialized, and teach us discipline without our noticing & resenting it. But most of us are not children, and that sort of pretense does not work with strong-minded and idiosyncratic adults, most of whom are here precisely because they can get away with self-importance they cannot realistically pretend to in more organized environments.

One danger is that the WMF, in trying to improve our standards, will drive away the volunteers. (It will be very hard to drive some of us away, but it's not impossible) Worse, it will also destroy the positive aspects of our values--the spontaneity and experimentation and freedom from consequences that children and adolescents enjoy (as do adults trying to recapture their childhood.) Our values are that we will muddle through, making many errors but finally creating something new and important. To some extent, it's the fundamental value of free culture. Unless it's preserved, there's no reason for there being WP except as a fosile, and no reason for the WMF except to maintain the fossilized remains.

I know I'm not answering the current question: I cannot do that. I do know that most of the attempts to deal with this problem on a large scale have totally failed. I cannot do better--I and many of us here can work adequately with a few articles at a time--nobody can work adequately with hundreds. There are a few people here attempting to singlehandedly deal with it. Legacypac been too reckless in what he accepts, but there There are others reckless in what they remove, including a few very well established admins, who singlehandedly are deleting such drafts in bulk, even though nobody has ever authorized this. They too make multiple errors, in the opposite direction. There have been some whose standards are just erratic. There are some, like perhaps myself, who have focussed excessively on only one aspect, such as promotionalism. There are some who have tried various forms of the X speedy standards and ended up with proposals to delete thousands of articles, almost all of which if examined are found to be acceptable exceptions. Most of us do know that articles and contributors must be dealt with individually and personally; since absolutely nobody has time to do it, some have resorted to harsh impersonality. (I have sometimes been thought willing to discuss and admit error, but I can only do this because most of the people I deal with summarily do not think to complain--if they held me to proper standards I could not meet them.) Knowing I'm fundamentally no better, I have tried not to be intolerant of even those I think downright abusive, nor am I naming them here.

There is a point where someone in trying to help makes more problems than they solve. I think it's wrong to seize on only one example. But that's the way WP works==if there's a problem, we find a victim. If we can do nothing positive ourselves, we judge others. So to respond to Kudpung's posting, the remove of the rights from Legacypac must be reversed. And, since we're on that topic, the same goes for Swister Twister. I thing we must restore NPP and AfC to both of them. I consider the removal obvious excessive zeal, which in turn, makes more problems than it solves. The extent of the discussions at various places is sufficient justification. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:. Although I supported removing Legacypac's rights at ANI as his use is creating disruption, I removed NPP as being improperly granted, as his actions at the time were questionable, and it was only supposed to be granted to those signed up as a NPP who weren't under a cloud. If you think he should have the NPP bit under the current rules, I have no objection to it being regranted while its (the bit's) removal, and other potential sanctions against him, are under discussion at ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For every argument you have a new accusation. To me it starts to sound like an abuse of powers. The Banner talk 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored NPP. Though the discussion there was extremely complicated and involved other editors also, I am not aware there is any ongoing discussion at ANI. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The discussions at ANI, brought by Legacypac, seem to have stalled, without consensus for even warning any of the three editors. As only Newimperial has any idea what he may have been doing wrong, we'll undoubtedly get back to ANI shortly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going about my business when Godsy returned to stalking me. I was satisfied with the block and spoke against further actions against him. Signedzzz hates me because my reports lead to a three month ISIL topic ban and a short term edit warring block last year. Lugnuts hates that I took him to ANi for being uncivil and making false allegations several years ago. Newimpartial's has been told by multiple admins to get out of everywhere he has been commenting around deletion and my actions. BMK called him a "clueless newbie". Remove those 4 editors prolific posts from the ANi and there is precious little left said against me.

In response to alleged improper granting... Swarm made several substantive posts in the ANi and (as far as I can tell) granted NPR shortly afterward. If you disagree with Swarm's grant of rights, take it up with Swarm, don't wheel-war.

While we are looking at failure to admit problems... I understand an WP:INVOLVED Admin who voted in ANi and made unsubstantiated allegations at an editor, should not be revoking a user right against the same editor some hours later. Admins should not sit as prosecutor and judge on the same case.

When I make mistakes I acknowledge and correct. In all aspects of Wikipedia my involvement is getting closer and closer to policy and consensus. I'm one of the good guys here. Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, among the four editors complaining about your actions, only NewImperial's complaint was withdrawn, after being, well, hounded, by BMK. The other three editors' complaints about your edits have reasonable support, and will be brought up again unless you make changes in your actions. This seems unlikely, as you appear not to understand the complaints. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, it does begin to look as if you are becoming involved. (As for me, my first impression is that he does make more mistakes than he ought, but it's no worse than average; we can't solve the problem by singling out people this way. NPP is only a preliminary step--it can't be judged by the standards we use at Deletion Review. But I'm going to only discuss the general issue for this--I am not analyzing individuals performances in detail--to do that fairly it is necessary to look at all the work, not the selected worst examples. I have a few of my own I'm not proud about, and I simply don't believe anyone who does much work in the area and things they're immune to even gross error. We could get a higher level of accuracy, if we we able to each of us do one or two a day, & take the time to do a detailed analysis--and a detailed and polite explanation about even the worst submissions. I personally do about 10 an hour, and never for more than an hour, and that's too fast to do it right. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur you have had plenty of opportunity to substantiate your allegation here but have not done so. I'm respectfully request you delete this comment at ANi.[4] If you make any more statements against me at ANi your conduct may be examined at an appropriate venue. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the community at DMOZ would be interested in joining the Wikimedia Movement? I bet we could get support for such a proposal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple factors involved. I can say it's being discussed in the new internal fora, but I don't think the operational models are compatible. The admin team is negotiating with AOL for access to internal DMOZ status not available to the general public, and the "DMOZ contract" may prohibit release of that data to the general public. Also, the COI model is completely different from that mandated here by the Foundation. For example, I would have been permitted to list my own website if I made the connection known to the "meta" editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ content is under a CC BY license so it is movement compatible.

With respect to COI, you can try to list your own website on WP as long as you disclose your relationship aswell. Here on Wikipedia you are allowed to hire someone to write a WP article about you or your business even.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:124.106.241.36, who you blocked recently, using the word 'evasion'. Can you say any more? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: The IP is changing "English" to "British" whenever it appears in a description. I think that makes him/her close enough to the editor indef-blocked for doing that to count as block evasion. They share other characteristics, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of templating is wholly inappropriate. As an administrator, you should know that. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: You realize WP:DTTR is an essay, don't you? I would rather he stop making edits in violation of policy and consensus, and edit-warring to keep them in. I would prefer that he stop editing 2017 unless he can get consensus, but he has violated WP:3RR, and I'll file an WP:AN3 report when I get to my desktop, if I have to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Rubin, where to begin. (a) DTTR, (b) INVOLVED (c) a war takes more than one side, did you warn the other editor(s)? (d) the situation was resolved, once again another admin action that's completely unnecessary (e) you clearly misunderstand SEAOFBLUE, there's no need to deliberately link to a redirect there (f) Where did I violate 3RR? Diffs please. Honestly, you should know much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an essay it might be, but it's also worth noting that to adhere to DTTR means you'll be acting with respect towards the other editor of long standing. Something you clearly know nothing about. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of your report and all the other places you've mentioned me, please now leave me alone, I don't want to be pinged by you, I don't want you to talk on my behalf, and if you need an admin action to be conducted, please get someone else to do it. You are not welcome anywhere near me any longer as it's clear to me that you cannot conduct yourself as a neutral admin. There are many other, more able admins who can deal with this kind of thing without all the infractions you've made in the in the past 36 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]